NIH Peer review reform-change we need, or lipstick on a Pig?

Infection and Immunity

Volumn 77, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 929-932

  Fang, Ferric C ^a   Casadevall, Arturo ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FUNDING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS CONTROL; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; EDITORIAL; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; UNITED STATES;

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 62449140876     PISSN: 00199567     EISSN: 10985522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.01567-08     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. AAAS. 2008. AAAS analysis of R&D in the FY 2009 budget. AAAS. Washington, DC.
2. Anonymous. 2008. A metareview at the N1H. Nat. Med. 14:351.
3. Anonymous. 2008. Research and recovery. Nat. Med. 14:1129.
4. Benderly, B. L. 7 May 2008. Taken for granted: lost in space. Sci. Careers. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a0800064.
5. Bonetta, L. 2008. Enhancing N1H grant peer review: a broader perspective. Cell 135:201-204.
6. Brumfiel, G. 2008. Older scientists publish more papers. Nature 455:1161.
7. Finn, R. 1995. NIH study section members acknowledge major flaws in the reviewing system. Scientist 9:7.
8. Furcht, L. T. 2007. NIH funding: what does the future look like? Science 316:198-200.
9. Hand, E. 2008. 222 NIH grants: 22 researchers. Nature 452:258-259.
10. Hannun, Y. A. 2008. NIH: grants revamp needs grounding in evidence. Nature 452:811.
11. Johnson, V. E. 2008. Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:11076-11080.
12. Kaiser, J. 2008. National Institutes of Health. Two strikes and you're out, grant applicants learn. Science 322:358.
13. Kaplan, D., N. Lacetera, and C. Kaplan. 2008. Sample size and precision in NIH peer review. PLoS ONE 3:e2761.
14. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago, Chicago. IL.
15. Larsson, U. 2005. Cultures of creativity: birth of a 21st century museum. Science History Publications, Sagamore Beach, MA.
16. Lee, C. 28 May 2007. Slump in NIH funding is taking toll on research, p. A06. Washington Post, Washington, DC.
17. Leshner, A. I. 2008. Reduce administrative burden. Science 322:1609.
18. Lewison, G., J. Anderson, and J. Jack. 1995. Assessing track records. Nature 377:671.
19. Mandel, H. G., and E. S. Vesell. 2008. Declines in NIH R01 research grant funding. Science 322:189.
20. Mervis, J. 2007. Scientific publishing. U.S. output flattens, and NSF wonders why. Science 317:582.
21. Meyers, M. A. 1995. Science, creativity and serendipity. Am. J. Roentgenol. 165:755-764.
22. Moore, J. P. 2007. Speaking out about U.S. science output. Science 318:913.
23. Pagano, M. 2006. American idol and NIH grant review. Cell 126:637-638.
24. Petsko, G. A. 2006. The system is broken. Genome Biol. 7:105.
25. Siliciano, R. 19 March 2007. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
26. Van Wart, M. 2005. Dynamics of leadership in public service: theory and practice. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk. NY.
27. Wessely, S. 1998. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 352:301-305.